Buxbaum v. Smith

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 12, 2025·No. 7:25-cv-00532·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL BUXBAUM, Plaintiff, ORDER TO AMEND

-against- No. 25-CV-00532 (PMH) ALDEN SMITH, Defendant.

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Michael Buxbaum (“Plaintiff”) brings this pro se action invoking the Court’s diversity subject-matter jurisdiction. He sues Alden Smith (“Defendant”), alleging a claim of legal malpractice in connection with Plaintiff’s sale of his condominiums, and seeking $1,813,000 in damages. (Doc. 1 at 3-5).1 Plaintiff has paid the filing fees to bring this action.2 Plaintiff, in his complaint in this matter, does not describe Defendant’s role or specify the relationship between them, describe the events such as what Defendant did or failed to do, or provide any dates, locations, or other information concerning how Defendant is alleged to have injured Plaintiff. For these reasons and as set forth below in greater detail, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. A summons shall not issue at this time. DISCUSSION The Court has the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has paid the fees to bring a federal civil action, if it determines that the action is frivolous, see Fitzgerald v.

1 Citations to the Complaint correspond to the pagination generated by ECF. 2 Plaintiff has filed 78 prior actions in this Court, many of which were commenced in January and February of this year, the vast majority having been dismissed for failure to submit the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. First E. Seventh Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000), fails to state a claim, Wachtler v. Cnty. of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1994), or that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572

F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged

misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Id. But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). After separating legal conclusions from well- pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 679. The complaint in this matter is so ambiguous, vague, and bareboned that the true substance of the allegations is disguised. The complaint lacks detail as to Defendant’s identity, the specific date(s) on which the actions complained of occurred, and any correlation between Defendant, his acts and the claims alleged. Plaintiff pleads only in the form complaint that “Alden Smith, Defendant employs no legal standards for Homeowners Associations” and requests the Court “Order Defendant Alden Smith to pay $1,813,000 for legally interfering with the selling of my condominiums.” (Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff alleges that diversity jurisdiction exists because he is a

citizen of Florida and Defendant is a citizen of New York, and the amount in controversy is “$1,813,000 Legal Malpractice.” (Id. at 3-4). Federal courts sitting in diversity “follow the choice-of-law rules of the forum state to determine the controlling substantive law.” Wolfson v. Bruno, 844 F. Supp. 2d 348, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal citations omitted). “New York courts have adopted a flexible choice of law approach and ‘seek to apply the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant interest in, or relationship to, the dispute.’” Id. (quoting White Plains Coat & Apron Co. v. Cintas Corp., 460 F.3d 281, 284 (2d Cir. 2006)). This case, a diversity action based on attorney malpractice, requires this Court to apply state substantive law. It is not immediately clear whether New York or Florida law applies to the

dispute because there is insufficient information in the pleading. Under Florida law, “in a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must plead and prove the following elements: (1) the attorney’s employment; (2) the attorney’s neglect of a reasonable duty; and (3) the attorney’s negligence was the proximate cause of the client’s loss.” Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So. 2d 931, 933 (Fla. 1999). “To prevail on a claim for legal malpractice under New York law, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) attorney negligence; (2) which is the proximate cause of a loss; and (3) actual damages.” Nordwind v. Rowland, 584 F.3d 420, 429 (2d Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiff must plead the foregoing elements to satisfy Rule 8 pleading standards under the law of either state. Because it is unclear if the defects in the Complaint can be cured with an amendment, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to allege facts sufficient to state a claim of legal malpractice. LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to provide more facts about his claim. In

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Buxbaum v. Smith, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Buxbaum v. Smith (Buxbaum v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nordwind v. Rowland
584 F.3d 420 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Steele v. Kehoe
747 So. 2d 931 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Wolfson v. Bruno
844 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D. New York, 2011)